At this point, the media’s insistence on finding some sort of equivalency between Trump and Clinton is becoming almost comical. The latest example is the AP article about the Al Smith Dinner, in which the reporter strains to make the argument that both Hillary and Donald were out of line. Hillary’s jokes were, in fact, well within acceptable parameters, though it is quite possible they were expertly crafted to get under the Donald’s skin. On the other hand, there is no way that accusing someone of being corrupt is consistent with a tradition of good natured ribbing.
But the walls may be tumbling down. The New York Times is calling it the way it actually happened.
Of course, anyone with an ounce of insight could see that Donald should have found an excuse to stay away. He is absolutely unable to poke fun at himself, or to take it as all in good fun when someone pokes fun at him. Some say that he ran for president in large part because he was steamed at the way he was mocked at the 2011 White House correspondent’s dinner. Assuming he loses, and is safely put out of the way (no revolution), then it would appear that the Democrats are, in fact, good at long term strategizing, because they couldn’t have picked an opponent more to their liking.
To follow up on a point I made in the first paragraph, the Clinton campaign has been truly brilliant in crafting zingers that get under Donald’s skin. She did it in each of the debates, and she did it with pretty much perfect timing. I was a Bernie guy, but I have to admit, it’s unlikely he could have cut Donald down to size as well as she’s done. But then, I’ve been saying for a long time that Donald simply doesn’t know how to interact with intelligent women. You can take the preppie out of the prep school, but you can’t take the prep school out of the preppie.
Post a Comment